Talk:Butt (magazine)

Use of the term f%aggot/f%ag throughout the publication

The website consistently uses the derogatory term "f%aggot". The Google search hit description says "BUTT started in 2001 as a pocket size magazine for and about f%aggots". What is their stance in using this term, in a world where gays still get discriminated, excluded, murdered? I would like a paragraph explaining this. (had to add % as the filter thinks I'm using it as a random insult) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.62 (talk) 15:54, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Untitled

I just created the page this morning, and have not had ample time to find secondary sources to explain its importance in the LGBT-community. Please allow me time to do so. The placement of the "Speedy Deletion" tag seems a bit unwarranted, given how long the article has been in existence (less than an hour). I will either find justifiable sources, or delete the article myself. Thank you. Icarus of old (talk) 18:54, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article requires a lot of cleanup as well as more verificability. It barely passes as a keeper right now. I think it would be a good idea to set a deadline for improvement, or this might be deleted. Please debate the matter below. If no one suggests a deadline, I will set one myself. Otherwise, this will be deleted. Meisfunny Oh yeah! 23:07, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this article back onto people's watchlist radar! I agree that the article should be fleshed out more, but I'm not sure I see what's so terrible about it that it would need to be deleted. Besides, there is no deadline for improving articles; their subjects either are notable or they are not, and I (at least) think Butt is. Can you explain what it is you think violates NPOV about the article? I do think the last paragraph is a bit promotional in tone, but that just means it needs to be rewritten. Cheers! — confusionball (talk) 23:48, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The hardest part about writing this article is the lack of reliable secondary resources, especially considering that the magazine is fairly young in the industry. I'm not affiliated with the magazine, and I tried not to have an advertisement serve as the basis of the article's necessity of being in Wikipedia. It's true, the article needs a lot of work. Other magazines of similar standing have representation online, and I feel that Wikipedia lacks in sufficient examples of LBGT-medias in comparison to normative media. I understand Wikipedia is not a soapbox, but I don't think that the article reads that way. Solid, constructive criticism would be infinitely more valuable in Wikipedia's aims than this notice, which offers no suggestions for improvement. Icarus of old (talk) 03:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

It seems to be from a conservative or religeous point of view, against gays. I think it is fine until the last paragraph, where it does violate NPOV, it also needs to be expanded. Meisfunny Oh yeah! 02:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, the above comment doesn't at all explain or offer any helpful criticisms beyond what was said already. Confusionball offered some wonderful sources for expansion, which I will launch into when I have some time. And there is still no explanation given at all for why one person thinks that the last paragraph violates NPOV. Icarus of old (talk) 02:58, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for confusion or bad clarifying. But what I am trying to say is that the last paragraph needs to be rewritten because it is not from a neutral point of veiw. You could also explain why the magzine is notable in showing popularity and sales by researching in the sites below. Searching Ask, Google, and MSN Search, I couldn't find hardly any more reliable resources. Simply state the facts as is with no commentary. The last paragraph only very minorly violates NPOV, but it doesn't seem to contain needed facts. I would do this editing myself, but this is not my expertise. I simply found it by chance. Meisfunny Oh yeah! 00:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Additional sources/notes for expansion

Here's some stuff that could be added to the article. — confusionball (talk) 04:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• The article could mention the BUTT Book: http://www.taschen.com/pages/en/catalogue/sex/new/01379/facts.butt_book.htm
• Coverage in New York Times TMagazine (Flash interface, yuck): http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2008/03/09/style/t/index.html#pageName=09fantasticw
• Article from Nerve, about straight guys reading it: http://www.nerve.com/dispatches/sundberg/butt/index.asp?page=1
• Interview with the editors: http://www.queerty.com/queer/the-power-issue/the-power-issue-the-boys-from-butt-20061121.php

And a few more. — confusionball (talk) 03:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• Number 17 on The Guardian's list of their favorite magazines: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2005/dec/12/mondaymediasection.pressandpublishing?gusrc=rss&feed=global
• Review of the magazine masquerading as a review of the book, from Art Lies, an art quarterly: http://www.artlies.org/article.php?id=1579&issue=56&s=0
• The Observer's review of the book: http://music.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,1943365,00.html

Request for Comment

Hmmmmm. After reading all of the above-cited links, I've been provided (thank you so much for the links, btw!) with a wealth of information. Now, my question is, in what direction does the article need to go? A massive rewrite is needed, that much is true. But with all of the new stuff, correlating straight-male readership to the magazine and the great interviews, what should this article contain? Any ideas? Icarus of old (talk) 19:25, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

British?

Shouldn't it be "bum" then? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.182.149.81 (talk) 00:25, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Butt (magazine). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080526072403/http://www.buttmagazine.com:80/?p=259 to http://www.buttmagazine.com/?p=259
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080208105107/http://gawker.com:80/352832/finally-a-chance-for-fully+splayed-men to http://gawker.com/352832/finally-a-chance-for-fully+splayed-men
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.gay.com/content/slideshow/?sernum=2497&navpath=/channels/style/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)